Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Golbez

Three questions from Carcharoth

Thanks for running in the election. Hope these questions are an easy way to start.

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you?

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

1. I'm.. me? Everything you need to know about me is on my userpage. My name is Andy. I was born in Texas, live in North Carolina, am a web developer and just drove back from Baton Rouge.
2. I'm 26.
3. The policy dispute question is an important one, along with the content dispute question, and my general opinion is a qualified yes, perhaps if only to be the body managing the votes on a policy, or to clarify the wording/spirit of the policy. Crafting policy, no. Handling a dispute over policy, or clarifying bits of it? Yes. At present we have no other discourse for this except endless rulelawyering and appeals to Jimbo. Similarly, I think content issues could be handled by the Arbcom in a limited fashion, though most content issues usually can be linked to conduct issues. Thanks for your question. --Golbez 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate question from Carcharoth

You ran in the January 2006 ArbCom elections. Were you happy with how you did then? How do you think you have improved as a candidate since then? Carcharoth 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was amazed at the result of the last election. I never expected to get that many positive votes, I was very happy with it. How have I improved? I'm not sure. Since then, I've joined the OTRS team, and (sadly) worked more with keeping out vandals and troublemakers than working on editing, but I'm not sure if much has changed about me. Thanks for the question. --Golbez 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?

   I think it does, because if we cannot determine what the policy is, then we cannot deal with policy disputes. In cases where the policy is confused or disputed, Arbcom should (when absolutely needed) make a statement or decision to clarify the policy or its status. Does it have this power? Let me check. I see nothing in WP:AP that says they cannot rule on policy matters, but of course nothing that says they can either. What it does say is they will decide cases according to established practices, the laws of Wikipedia, and real-world laws - but no mention is made of policy, which is different from law/rules. For example, the no-original-research rule is not a policy, it is a rule, a non-negotiable law. So after all this rambling, what do I have to say? The current policy doesn't say that Arbcom will use policy to make decisions - but of course it does. And since it does, it needs to be absolutely sure what the word and spirit of the policy are, so yes, in cases where there is a disagreement, if only in the context of that single case, Arbcom should clarify policy or policy disputes. As for beyond a single case, that needs more discussion; however, the notion of prior law indicates that once a decision is made, it will stick to all cases. --Golbez 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?

   Oy, the Giano case. I deliberately avoided that one because of the length and vitriol. (Of course, I wouldn't ignore a case if I were an arbitrator, but for now it was a luxury I enjoyed :)) My feeling at the moment is, who to promote to administrator is the responsibility of the bureaucrats - and the bureaucrats are chosen by the community and promoted by the stewards. Therefore, I'm not sure if this would qualify as a directly actionable abuse of power, and rather should have been brought to the stewards first. This is of course a lot different from if a crat had de-adminned someone without a clear consensus, as that is harming someone. I'm not sure if harm was shown in this specific case by the adminning, and therefore should be handled within the community rather than by Arbcom.

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?

   I looked, but I couldn't find one off-hand. The classic example for this, though, would be User:Wik, who at the time of his permaban was the #1 human editor on Wikipedia, by number of edits. A more recent example would be User:SPUI. I agree - someone who has a moment of misbehavior should be treated differently from someone whose editing history is primarily misbehavior. However, being a valuable editor is not a get-out-of-jail-free pass. No matter how good an editor is, if he has become truly disruptive, then he is doing more harm than good. See again, Wik.

4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.

   Which is more valuable? Editing articles, which is why admins should do that primarily. Administration exists only to foster the editing environment. Whenever I find myself burning out on Wikipedia, I realize it's because I'm not doing any editing, only blocks and reversions. It's good to get back to basics once in a while. However, in a case where it's an editor versus an administrator? They should be treated absolutely equally. Being an administrator does not allow you to break the rules of decency and consensus any more than being a great editor does. Justice is blind.

5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)

   Hm, lemme take a look here. I'm browsing the ones I'm familiar with, but I'm not finding any I disagree with - which may be because I'm familiar with them. My main disagreements come from the length of bans - what is the good in banning someone for a year? How many people have come back from an arbcom 12 month ban and been valid editorS? (That's an actual question) If someone is truly disruptive, remove them completely. If they are not, and the disruption is concentrated to a single section, then ban them from that section. I'll keep looking, and get back to you when I find one. My problem with this question is, I'm only comfortable in commenting on cases I'm familiar with. Yes, if I'm on arbcom, I will have the time and energy to read everything about each case that comes to me, but expecting me to read all of the previous cases to find one I disagree with is a bit much. I'm not rubber-stamp, nor am I lazy - but I am not comfortable with commenting on a case I have not read extensively on, and I don't have the time to read extensively on all previous Arbcom cases. Only future ones, if I manage to get elected. :)

6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?

   It's good to have a large number of options, and Fred seems good at supplying those. I have no problem at present with him doing most of the original work, though I'd have to wait to see how the whole process works out until I can say whether something needs to be done about it. More options is better, so perhaps I'd look at the gaps his decisions leave and fill them in. :)

7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I have no problem with non-administrators on Arbcom, since both Arbcom and administration require a certain poll of users. However, the lack of ability to view deleted articles and such is a problem, and if it became a problem, then that user should recuse themselves from the case (Or have the page supplied privately by Arbcom), and if repeated recusal becomes a problem then perhaps a policy change can be made. However, I think this is a problem in search of a solution, as so far as I know, no non-admin has yet been elected to Arbcom. If in the (in my estimation) rare case that happens, then we can deal with the problems that arise. Thank you for the questions! --Golbez 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully a faster decision process, perhaps more transparency, and especially a delightful humorous cynicism to keep us all sane. --Golbez 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from jd2718

You announced your candidacy on the last possible day. Why? Why not earlier? Jd2718 03:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, I was out of town from Nov 23 to Nov 30. I came back and realized around 1am Dec 1 that the deadline had passed - til someone told me that the deadline was 23:59 Dec 1, not 23:59 Nov 30. :) As for why I didn't do it before then, I think I was still pondering it. (Note - yes, you will see edits from me in that period, but just a few, made from my friend's house in Baton Rouge.) --Golbez 03:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?

I'm guessing this question pertains to an evolution/creationism (and young earth/old earth, etc.) argument, as that's the only time I can really think of this issue coming up. That's an interesting question. I suppose I would have to say that SPOV would tend to prevail in those situations, if only because it has more reputable primary sources to cite. Generally, NPOV and SPOV will be identical. In the cases where they aren't, SPOV should be taken primarily over the non-S POV. --Golbez 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?

I too have noticed a rather high turnover rate, so something must be going on. At this point - not being on it - the only things that I can foresee that would cause me to resign are personal issues, rather than any Wiki-based stress or burnout, since I usually deal with that quickly. As for people being angry at a decision, such is the curse of the arbitrator. I don't think that would cause a resignation.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

That's a very good question. There's been many times where I have been unfamiliar with the subject matter, so that all I can do is comment on the policy and actions of those involved. In this case, we could seek comment from people absolutely not involved in the argument, as kind of "friends of the court" briefs. --Golbez 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not comment negatively on any candidate, but I do intend to vote for or against, or comment positively, on candidates. I can work with no problem with people who vote against me, and I hope people can offer me the same courtesy. --Golbez 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from TheronJ

1. Your candidate statement states that you will recuse in "all reasonable instances." Can you tell me a little bit more about what instances you believe are reasonable for recusal and any specific cases in which you anticipate recusal?

If it's a dispute in which I'm personally involved, or a user in which I've had strong disputes with in the past. By reasonable, I mean, if the person targets me, by starting a conflict with me just to get me to recuse, that won't work.

2. More specifically, based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal or would consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you resolve the issue of recusal in those areas? Thanks, TheronJ 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can think of a handful of users that would lead to my recusal, simply because I would likely be biased against them. A very small handful. As for an area in which I'm personally involved, I can't really think of one at the moment, but I suspect it would be very apparent were it to come to arbitration. (i.e. I and a user get in a large, drawn-out argument over something in an article, then it somehow comes to arbcom; I would very likely recuse myself, since I would probably be an involved party. I can't give a specific instance, only a pledge that when recusal is reasonable, it will happen.) --Golbez 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean

Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?

I've made statements on and been a party to a few RfCs, and performed some "unofficial" mediation on a couple of articles. I may well do that. --Golbez 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Guettarda

I was wondering if you wished to address/provide context for this comment among the votes. Thanks. Guettarda 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only did I never say that phrase, I don't know nearly enough about Geogre to say anything about him or his "gang". I've mentioned him, but I can't recall any specifically negative comments. But I suppose it's easy to make unfounded accusations when citing a medium that, by its very nature on Wikipedia, is uncitable, due to the rule against public logging. I've asked him what he's referring to. --Golbez 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Questions

1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

My reasons for this question are three-fold.

First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.

Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.

The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

Questions from LoveLight

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I have been personally involved in that fight and article, I'd have difficulty being objective - especially since it's primarily a content dispute. I've already made clear my feelings on people who feel the need to change a well-established article. One person will never be able to change that strong of a consensus. --Golbez 17:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)